Bigfoot isn't real because it disproves evolution but Nessie is for the same reason.

What do you mean Bigfoot isn't real???

steveksux

06-25-2012, 17:57

The plug for the KKK is just icing on the cake, too... :upeyes:

Not so sure how even if Nessie exists and was a dinosaur, how does that disprove evolution?

Sharks and coelacanths date back in the hundreds of millions of years also. And they've been documented. I guess the lure of imaginary beings is just too strong to ignore... :rofl: Maybe they don't think they can have a valid scientific theory without some mythical being involved?

Randy

Animal Mother

06-25-2012, 19:05

I think the important question is what does the Minhocão teach us about agriculture?

Woofie

06-25-2012, 19:06

Oh God . . .

I've been debating running for office. Someone needs to inject a little sense into our state government.

Bigfoot isn't real because it disproves evolution but Nessie is for the same reason.

Loch Ness itself was not formed until the continental glaciers melted and withdrew after the last ice age. :wow:

Which means the Loch itself is less than 10-15,000 years old!

So how does a millions of years old "monster" like Nessie come to inhabit a Loch that is that "young" geologically?

Was it frozen in the ice and survived the thaw?

Like monsters in any number of bad 1950's sci-fi movies?

:dunno:

As for Bigfoot. If it really existed, someone would have produced a dead body or bones by now.

Animal Mother

06-26-2012, 10:21

With that type of attitude, maybe you should "look it up"! Asking you to share information is an attitude? If you'd like me to look it up, perhaps you could at least provide a reference that you think expresses this difference.

muscogee

06-26-2012, 10:23

Loch Ness itself was not formed until the continental glaciers melted and withdrew after the last ice age. :wow:

Which means the Loch itself is less than 10-15,000 years old!

So how does a millions of years old "monster" like Nessie come to inhabit a Loch that is that "young" geologically?

It swam there after it got off the Ark.

scccdoc

06-26-2012, 11:52

Asking you to share information is an attitude? If you'd like me to look it up, perhaps you could at least provide a reference that you think expresses this difference.

You should know the obvious answer. Try "Websters"

Gunhaver

06-26-2012, 11:54

Loch Ness itself was not formed until the continental glaciers melted and withdrew after the last ice age. :wow:

Which means the Loch itself is less than 10-15,000 years old!

So how does a millions of years old "monster" like Nessie come to inhabit a Loch that is that "young" geologically?

Was it frozen in the ice and survived the thaw?

Like monsters in any number of bad 1950's sci-fi movies?

:dunno:

As for Bigfoot. If it really existed, someone would have produced a dead body or bones by now.

It's connected to the ocean but only through shallow rivers with man made locks that only spawning small fish can get through. The standard response from the people that just have to believe Nessie exists is that there are underwater caves that connect all the Lochs in the area together as well as to the sea. No evidence for this of course but some people don't concern themselves with that.

Woofie

06-26-2012, 12:33

Evolution or Darwinism?Big difference...............

From Merriam Webster. Emphasis mine.

Evolution - 4b
a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

Darwinism - 1: a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors— compare evolution 4, neo-Darwinism

Look like the same thing to me.

scccdoc

06-26-2012, 13:49

From Merriam Webster. Emphasis mine.

Evolution - 4b
a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

Darwinism - 1: a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors— compare evolution 4, neo-Darwinism

Look like the same thing to me.

Since this thread revolves around "evolution",here's what I found "evolution, Websters":

evo·lu·tion

noun \ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\

Definition of EVOLUTION

1
: one of a set of prescribed movements

2
a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfolding) b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emission) c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/growth) (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolved)

3
: the process of working out or developing

4
a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phylogeny) b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

5
: the extraction of a mathematical root

So 4b seems to be correct, that was "4b". Darwinism ? I do not believe the two terms are freely interchangeable unless you ignore the 1st five preferred definitions. Just wanted to clarify your omission of the previous preferred definitions. I don't consider "evolution" and "Darwinism the same, sorry.

Gunhaver

06-26-2012, 14:10

Somebody here recently tried arguing definitions instead of the key to the issue and it didn't really work out for him. The point is that there's no evidence that Nessie exists or that it's a plesiosaur if it even does exist and these schools are teaching that there are still dinosaurs alive today to the contrary of all evidence because they have a belief system to perpetuate.

scccdoc

06-26-2012, 14:19

Somebody here recently tried arguing definitions instead of the key to the issue and it didn't really work out for him. The point is that there's no evidence that Nessie exists or that it's a plesiosaur if it even does exist and these schools are teaching that there are still dinosaurs alive today to the contrary of all evidence because they have a belief system to perpetuate.

Got no problem with that. I believe in evolution, not Darwinism. Just wanted a distinction (according to reliable sources) to be made known. Really, it wasn't an antagonistic post I made earlier. Geesh

Gunhaver

06-26-2012, 14:33

Got no problem with that. I believe in evolution, not Darwinism. Just wanted a distinction (according to reliable sources) to be made known. Really, it wasn't an antagonistic post I made earlier. Geesh

OK then, point of clarification. What specifically do you not believe about Darwinism but do believe about evolution. Just curious what you think the difference is.

void *

06-26-2012, 14:39

The point is that there's no evidence that Nessie exists or that it's a plesiosaur if it even does exist and these schools are teaching that there are still dinosaurs alive today to the contrary of all evidence because they have a belief system to perpetuate.

I'd just like to add that even if Nessie did exist, and was in fact a plesiosaur, that would not necessarily mean that evolution was false.

scccdoc

06-26-2012, 14:44

OK then, point of clarification. What specifically do you not believe about Darwinism but do believe about evolution. Just curious what you think the difference is.

Darwinism is anti-God (macro evolution) and you know that I'm Christian..........................

Gunhaver

06-26-2012, 14:47

I'd just like to add that even if Nessie did exist, and was in fact a plesiosaur, that would not necessarily mean that evolution was false.

Nope, just like the coelacanth discovery didn't mean evolution was false. But the YEC claim that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time would be fueled like crazy. They'd adapt the new information into their teachings while faulting scientists for doing the same.

Darwinism is anti-God (macro evolution) and you know that I'm Christian..........................

I see, micro evolution but no macro evolution. At what point does micro evolution end and macro evolution begin? What stops the process at a preset point to make sure it doesn't go any further than you're comfortable with?

Woofie

06-26-2012, 15:01

Since this thread revolves around "evolution",here's what I found "evolution, Websters":

evo·lu·tion

noun \ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\

Definition of EVOLUTION

1
: one of a set of prescribed movements

2
a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfolding) b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emission) c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/growth) (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolved)

3
: the process of working out or developing

4
a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phylogeny) b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

5
: the extraction of a mathematical root

So 4b seems to be correct, that was "4b". Darwinism ? I do not believe the two terms are freely interchangeable unless you ignore the 1st five preferred definitions. Just wanted to clarify your omission of the previous preferred definitions. I don't consider "evolution" and "Darwinism the same, sorry.

Did not the definition of "Darwinism" specifically refer to definition 4 of "Evolution? I think it did.

All you are doing is driving home the point that Evolution encompasses the term "Darwinism."

scccdoc

06-26-2012, 15:08

I see, micro evolution but no macro evolution. At what point does micro evolution end and macro evolution begin? What stops the process at a preset point to make sure it doesn't go any further than you're comfortable with?

I think you have that backwards.Macro presumes that all life began from Miller's theory of electric shock in a primordial pool of chemicals. I think that has been dis proven, at very least contested. But, we're not going to engage in that debate, are we?

Micro is ongoing but reversible in some cases.

Woofie

06-26-2012, 15:24

I think you have that backwards.Macro presumes that all life began from Miller's theory of electric shock in a primordial pool of chemicals. I think that has been dis proven, at very least contested. But, we're not going to engage in that debate, are we?

Micro is ongoing but reversible in some cases.

The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the origins of life.

scccdoc

06-26-2012, 15:35

The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the origins of life.

And "The Origin of Species" ,ie, Darwinism, doesn't? Stop spinning, you'll get dizzy...............

Gunhaver

06-26-2012, 15:53

I think you have that backwards.Macro presumes that all life began from Miller's theory of electric shock in a primordial pool of chemicals. I think that has been dis proven, at very least contested. But, we're not going to engage in that debate, are we?

Micro is ongoing but reversible in some cases.

No, we're not going to engage that debate because abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. In simplest terms, Microevolution means small adaptations within a species. Macroevolution means transition to a new species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

Now, having easily observed that microevolution is happening all around us every day, and completely ignoring or denying the observed instances of macroevolution,

the question remains, what exactly prevents all those minute adaptations from eventually piling up on one another to amount to a change to another species, especially since genetic analysis among an ever growing number of species shows that this is exactly what's hapening? What limits any given species to a preset number of small adaptive changes so they don't take it too far? (Too far being farther than you're comfortable with)

Gunhaver

06-26-2012, 15:58

Micro is ongoing but reversible in some cases.

Microevolution happens every time a life form produces offspring that is not a 100% genetic copy of itself. To reverse it would mean to start producing offspring that was genetically identical to past generations. Where exactly has that happened?

Woofie

06-26-2012, 16:02

And "The Origin of Species" ,ie, Darwinism, doesn't? Stop spinning, you'll get dizzy...............

Nope. Someone has been telling you lies.

BTW you do realize that the Theory of Evolution goes far beyond Darwin's research, right?

Gunhaver

06-26-2012, 16:05

And "The Origin of Species" ,ie, Darwinism, doesn't? Stop spinning, you'll get dizzy...............

Um, have you actually read it? Because I have my copy right here next to my bible and there's no mention of abiogenesis.

Animal Mother

06-26-2012, 18:46

And "The Origin of Species" ,ie, Darwinism, doesn't? Stop spinning, you'll get dizzy...............
No, it doesn't.

scccdoc

06-27-2012, 06:44

No, it doesn't.
Doesn't what? You know , I only entered this thread to point out that "evolution" and "Darwinism" are often confused.It has been clarified by the dictionary that there are numerous meanings to the word "evolution". My interjection was for clarification and accuracy, that's it.

scccdoc

06-27-2012, 07:02

No, we're not going to engage that debate because abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. In simplest terms, Microevolution means small adaptations within a species. Macroevolution means transition to a new species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

Now, having easily observed that microevolution is happening all around us every day, and completely ignoring or denying the observed instances of macroevolution,

the question remains, what exactly prevents all those minute adaptations from eventually piling up on one another to amount to a change to another species, especially since genetic analysis among an ever growing number of species shows that this is exactly what's hapening? What limits any given species to a preset number of small adaptive changes so they don't take it too far? (Too far being farther than you're comfortable with)

Been a while since I studied biology,but the reverse is true. Take a domesticated group of pigs, put them in the wild and within a fw generations, they revert back to more primitive beings. Long snouts,color change, wild aggressive behavior. So in essence, there isn't a "piling up", more of an unraveling. But you may need to be in an environment of wild hogs to believe this phenomenon. Oh, I forgot, we're on the "atheist-theist" section of "Glock Talk", lol

scccdoc

06-27-2012, 07:08

BTW, Hello "gang", lol

Woofie

06-27-2012, 07:36

Doesn't what? You know , I only entered this thread to point out that "evolution" and "Darwinism" are often confused.It has been clarified by the dictionary that there are numerous meanings to the word "evolution". My interjection was for clarification and accuracy, that's it.

"On The Origin Of Species" doesn't comment on how life originally began.

And you're correct that there are multiple definitions to the word "Evolution" but many of those don't apply to the usage of the word for the Theory of Evolution. When you look up the definition of "Darwinism" on Merriam Webster it specifically refers back to definition four of "Evolution."

scccdoc

06-27-2012, 07:44

"On The Origin Of Species" doesn't comment on how life originally began.

And you're correct that there are multiple definitions to the word "Evolution" but many of those don't apply to the usage of the word for the Theory of Evolution. When you look up the definition of "Darwinism" on Merriam Webster it specifically refers back to definition four of "Evolution."

Yeah, that's my point. Darwin suggests that all forms of life are descended from simpler forms. My understanding is that atheism really took hold after the publication of "The Origin of Species". Just a comment, not an argument.

Syclone538

06-27-2012, 07:59

Yeah, that's my point. Darwin suggests that all forms of life are descended from simpler forms. My understanding is that atheism really took hold after the publication of "The Origin of Species". Just a comment, not an argument.

That's like someone who lives 150 years after we figure out what happened before the big bang saying that atheism really took hold after that point. Atheism spreads as we learn more because some people need alternate theories to change their mind.

I on the other hand don't need the theory of evolution to reject unsupported claims.

Woofie

06-27-2012, 08:00

Yeah, that's my point. Darwin suggests that all forms of life are descended from simpler forms. My understanding is that atheism really took hold after the publication of "The Origin of Species". Just a comment, not an argument.

Atheism was around long before Christianity ever showed up on the scene. In ancient Greece atheism was a capital crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism#Ancient_Levant

scccdoc

06-27-2012, 08:30

Atheism was around long before Christianity ever showed up on the scene. In ancient Greece atheism was a capital crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism#Ancient_Levant

Not being an expert, I don't doubt you. But, did atheism not "take-off" post Darwinism?

scccdoc

06-27-2012, 08:37

That's like someone who lives 150 years after we figure out what happened before the big bang saying that atheism really took hold after that point. Atheism spreads as we learn more because some people need alternate theories to change their mind.

I on the other hand don't need the theory of evolution to reject unsupported claims.

I can certainly applaud that. But, once again,I simply entered this thread to make a distinction between "evolution" (see definition) and Darwinism. I am a Christian that believes and knows that things do change but not that man "evolved" from a "primordial soup".................... DOC

Woofie

06-27-2012, 11:56

Not being an expert, I don't doubt you. But, did atheism not "take-off" post Darwinism?

I think it would be hard to tell for sure. If atheists faced discrimination, including capital punishment, you would expect them to keep their lack of faith a secret.

An interesting Wikipedia article on discrimination against atheists. It does say that atheism, in the modern sense, did not exist before the 17th century. However, the accepted definition of atheism seems to have changed over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

scccdoc

06-28-2012, 06:46

I think it would be hard to tell for sure. If atheists faced discrimination, including capital punishment, you would expect them to keep their lack of faith a secret.

An interesting Wikipedia article on discrimination against atheists. It does say that atheism, in the modern sense, did not exist before the 17th century. However, the accepted definition of atheism seems to have changed over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

The disciples of Christ died for their belief as have many others since that time. It takes very strong faith to reject self preservation. Not meant as a cheap shot................

Bren

06-28-2012, 07:29

If what the article says is true, it doesn't disprove anything about evolution (in fact, it would be closer to proof FOR evolution), but it certainly proves that isn't much of a school. Even a child should realize that evolution doesn't say dinosaurs and human CAN'T exist at the same time, just that they didn't.

Sending your children to schools that "protect" them from the best scientific knowledge is a pretty bad thing to do to them, but I'm sure parents justify it as "protecting them from demons" or whatever those people think.

Bren

06-28-2012, 07:37

The disciples of Christ died for their belief as have many others since that time. It takes very strong faith to reject self preservation. Not meant as a cheap shot................

Atheists do not base their religious opinions on faith, so that is a fairly meaning less response.

However...

Muslim terrorists do it all the time, as have people from all the world's major religions. That your faith is strong doesn't make it true. The wrongest is often the strongest, or so the WW II historians might say.

I'm betting you don't even believe that Vishnu is watching over your reincarnated spirit, or whatever:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/MKGandhi.jpg/200px-MKGandhi.jpg

Bren

06-28-2012, 07:40

Not being an expert, I don't doubt you. But, did atheism not "take-off" post Darwinism?

It certainly "took off" with the increase in scientific knowledge and education among the masses. Neither Darwin's theories, nor any other scientist's, are either the cause or effect of increased atheism. Instead, they both come from the same root - increased education and scientific knowledge.

Syclone538

06-28-2012, 07:45

The disciples of Christ died for their belief as have many others since that time. It takes very strong faith to reject self preservation. Not meant as a cheap shot................

Well, yeah, we don't have any faith at all. Pretending to believe something that you don't means something to you, but means absolutely nothing to me. I do it to not hurt peoples feelings.

scccdoc

06-28-2012, 07:58

Well, yeah, we don't have any faith at all. Pretending to believe something that you don't means something to you, but means absolutely nothing to me. I do it to not hurt peoples feelings.

I'm not pretending, nor do I believe Jim Elliot was pretending, not to mention the disciples or those executed by Pliny the Younger.

PLEASE NOTE : Not meant as a cheap shot................Geesh

scccdoc

06-28-2012, 08:04

Atheists do not base their religious opinions on faith, so that is a fairly meaning less response.

However...

Muslim terrorists do it all the time, as have people from all the world's major religions. That your faith is strong doesn't make it true. The wrongest is often the strongest, or so the WW II historians might say.

I'm betting you don't even believe that Vishnu is watching over your reincarnated spirit, or whatever:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/MKGandhi.jpg/200px-MKGandhi.jpg
..underneath that moronic veneer lurks a thirst for blood. ... an invidious potential for lawlessness and despair; existential and otherwise. The sooner you weasels open your eyes to the hideous truth, the sooner you'll wish you were dead

Weasels? My,my.....................don't we have a chip on our shoulder today..............Oh,you forgot to call us "ignorant", also.

Syclone538

06-28-2012, 08:11

I'm not pretending, nor do I believe Jim Elliot was pretending, not to mention the disciples or those executed by Pliny the Younger.

PLEASE NOTE : Not meant as a cheap shot................Geesh

You misunderstood. I should have explained what I was trying to say better. I'm not saying you are pretending.

The disciples of Christ died for their belief as have many others since that time. It takes very strong faith to reject self preservation. Not meant as a cheap shot................

Because it mattered to them. Pretending would be against their religious beliefs.

I have no religious beliefs, so pretending means nothing to me. I do it every year at Christmas and Thanksgiving.

No offense taken.

scccdoc

06-28-2012, 08:28

You misunderstood. I should have explained what I was trying to say better. I'm not saying you are pretending.

Because it mattered to them. Pretending would be against their religious beliefs.

I have no religious beliefs, so pretending means nothing to me. I do it every year at Christmas and Thanksgiving.

No offense taken.

Many people, including "Christians" pretend at Christmas.

Syclone538

06-28-2012, 08:32

So you understand what I am trying to say?

You will not pretend because it means something to you.

I will pretend because it means nothing to me. I do it to not hurt others feelings, let alone to save my life or the life of someone I care about.

edit

I think it would be hard to tell for sure. If atheists faced discrimination, including capital punishment, you would expect them to keep their lack of faith a secret.

An interesting Wikipedia article on discrimination against atheists. It does say that atheism, in the modern sense, did not exist before the 17th century. However, the accepted definition of atheism seems to have changed over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

I'm trying to help this make sense to you. Have I made any progress?

scccdoc

06-28-2012, 08:38

So you understand what I am trying to say?

You will not pretend because it means something to you.

I will pretend because it means nothing to me. I do it to not hurt others feelings, let alone to save my life or the life of someone I care about.

Just my opinion, but I think the term "Christian" is watered down..................... many would recant.

Syclone538

06-28-2012, 10:05

Just my opinion, but I think the term "Christian" is watered down..................... many would recant.

I don't care.

I'm trying to help you understand that the number of atheists were under estimated when there were serious consequences to being atheist. I have no idea if I've helped you realize that.

scccdoc

06-28-2012, 10:17

I don't care.

I'm trying to help you understand that the number of atheists were under estimated when there were serious consequences to being atheist. I have no idea if I've helped you realize that.

I guess I could respond in like, "I don't care".............I was doing the same as you, evaluating the degree of commitment of people who call themselves "Christian". Good luck to you..............DOC

Syclone538

06-28-2012, 10:28

I guess I could respond in like, "I don't care".............I was doing the same as you, evaluating the degree of commitment of people who call themselves "Christian". Good luck to you..............DOC

I have no idea how you so completely misunderstood what I've been trying to say.

scccdoc

06-28-2012, 11:26

I have no idea how you so completely misunderstood what I've been trying to say.
I think I understand,

"I will pretend because it means nothing to me. I do it to not hurt others feelings, let alone to save my life or the life of someone I care about."

but the written word does not have personal face to face interaction. I have no hard feelings toward you, guess I shouldn't have interjected my definition of Christianity or lack of understanding of what it means. Some "Christians" do "pretend" though they shouldn't.

Woofie

06-28-2012, 11:44

I think I understand,

"I will pretend because it means nothing to me. I do it to not hurt others feelings, let alone to save my life or the life of someone I care about."

but the written word does not have personal face to face interaction. I have no hard feelings toward you, guess I shouldn't have interjected my definition of Christianity or lack of understanding of what it means. Some "Christians" do "pretend" though they shouldn't.

What he is trying to say is that Christians have a reason to not pretend in the face of religious discrimination. If a Christian is killed for being a Christian he believes still gets to go to heaven, which is where he wanted to go anyway.

Atheists have no incentive to make a stand about their lack of faith. There is no reward for standing up to the oppressors. Atheists believe they get to spend the rest of eternity running a worm ranch.

You really can't compare the two cases like you could if the debate were between Christians and Muslims or Hindus for example.

scccdoc

06-28-2012, 12:51

What he is trying to say is that Christians have a reason to not pretend in the face of religious discrimination. If a Christian is killed for being a Christian he believes still gets to go to heaven, which is where he wanted to go anyway.

Atheists have no incentive to make a stand about their lack of faith. There is no reward for standing up to the oppressors. Atheists believe they get to spend the rest of eternity running a worm ranch.

You really can't compare the two cases like you could if the debate were between Christians and Muslims or Hindus for example.

Thanks Woofie, but once again, I understand. I interjected my dismay about SOME "Christians". they would not have the incentive to make a stand either. Note the quotations..... "Christians" as in what some call themselves.

Woofie

06-28-2012, 13:06

Thanks Woofie, but once again, I understand. I interjected my dismay about SOME "Christians". they would not have the incentive to make a stand either. Note the quotations..... "Christians" as in what some call themselves.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. I guess that is the defining moment for one to realize whether you are sincere in your faith or just a nominal Christian.

Bren

06-28-2012, 13:37

..underneath that moronic veneer lurks a thirst for blood. ... an invidious potential for lawlessness and despair; existential and otherwise. The sooner you weasels open your eyes to the hideous truth, the sooner you'll wish you were dead

Weasels? My,my.....................don't we have a chip on our shoulder today..............Oh,you forgot to call us "ignorant", also.

You realize you are quoting my signature line - from a movie - that has absolutely nothing to do with the post, right?

The fact that you had to copy it and paste it in, because the quote feature didn't include it, should have been a hint.

Well done and good comeback.:upeyes::rofl:
It doesn't look like I need to call anybody ignorant.:rofl:

scccdoc

06-28-2012, 14:21

You realize you are quoting my signature line - from a movie - that has absolutely nothing to do with the post, right?

The fact that you had to copy it and paste it in, because the quote feature didn't include it, should have been a hint.

Well done and good comeback.:upeyes::rofl:
It doesn't look like I need to call anybody ignorant.:rofl:
Aren't you the arrogant one?The fact that you consider me "ignorant" because I do not recognize a line from a movie is a self indictment. We're not playing "Jeopardy" here! BTW, "your signature line"? It's not all about you, contrary to your megalomania.

void *

06-28-2012, 15:44

BTW, "your signature line"? It's not all about you, contrary to your megalomania.

Someone calling the signature that the board allows individual users to add so it will show up with their posts "my signature line" is hardly megalomania.

I wrote a program to generate text using Markov chains. I then ran this program, feeding it text from three different scientists as input, and put the result I liked best in my signature line.

Do you really think the fact that I called it 'my signature line' in the above text means I'm a megalomaniac? From my perspective, it's a simple description of something I actually did.

scccdoc

06-28-2012, 16:50

Someone calling the signature that the board allows individual users to add so it will show up with their posts "my signature line" is hardly megalomania.

I wrote a program to generate text using Markov chains. I then ran this program, feeding it text from three different scientists as input, and put the result I liked best in my signature line.

Do you really think the fact that I called it 'my signature line' in the above text means I'm a megalomaniac? From my perspective, it's a simple description of something I actually did.

Did you call someone "ignorant'" for not caring or reading your signature line? Especially someone with which you normally do not communicate? DO YOU BRAG THAT YOU ARE SMARTER THAN 90 SOMETHING % OF THE REST OF THE PUBLIC? That is bizarre.

Bren

06-28-2012, 17:07

Someone calling the signature that the board allows individual users to add so it will show up with their posts "my signature line" is hardly megalomania.

If he understood that, he'd understand why it doesn't work with "quote" to begin with.:upeyes:

Bren

06-28-2012, 17:09

Did you call someone "ignorant'" for not caring or reading your signature line? Especially someone with which you normally do not communicate? DO YOU BRAG THAT YOU ARE SMARTER THAN 90 SOMETHING % OF THE REST OF THE PUBLIC? That is bizarre.

I believe "ignorant" came from you, when you responded with a poor attempt to insult and belittle me. I just pointed out that you weren't up to the task, and you had show it yourself, so there was no need to call you anything.

As for the X% of the world thing, that was a direct response to a question. Do you ask questions here that you don't want answered? I fail to see how responding to questions on a discussion forum is bragging.

You seem to be becoming unglued a little. Maybe you need a break.

void *

06-28-2012, 17:15

DO YOU BRAG THAT YOU ARE SMARTER THAN 90 SOMETHING % OF THE REST OF THE PUBLIC?

I do own a shirt that says:
"Most Intelligent Person In The World [citation needed]"

Bren

06-28-2012, 17:37

I do own a shirt that says:
"Most Intelligent Person In The World [citation needed]"

:rofl:

I'll add that the IQ distirbution is such that it only take an IQ in the 130's to be in the 99th percentile percentile. If you are impressed much by being smarter than 99 of every 100 people, your opinion of people is much higher than mine.

muscogee

06-28-2012, 17:47

:rofl:

I'll add that the IQ distirbution is such that it only take an IQ in the 130's to be in the 99th percentile percentile. If you are impressed much by being smarter than 99 of every 100 people, your opinion of people is much higher than mine.

An IQ in the 99th percentile would be between 137 and 138.

scccdoc

06-28-2012, 19:05

I do own a shirt that says:
"Most Intelligent Person In The World [citation needed]"

And that is most probably in jest, maybe I'm wrong but that's not how I take Bren. Many atheist on this board can be very aggressive.

Syclone538

06-29-2012, 00:15

I guess I could respond in like, "I don't care".............I was doing the same as you, evaluating the degree of commitment of people who call themselves "Christian". Good luck to you..............DOC

I was not trying to evaluate the degree of commitment of people who call themselves Christian. I was only trying to explain to you that what theists do in response to discrimination (or worse) is completely irrelevant to what an atheist will do in response to discrimination.

I don't care was the wrong thing to say. It's just that your posts seemed unrelated Woofie's post 42 that I think (but I'm still not sure) you were disputing.

I think I understand,

"I will pretend because it means nothing to me. I do it to not hurt others feelings, let alone to save my life or the life of someone I care about."

but the written word does not have personal face to face interaction. I have no hard feelings toward you,
...

Cool, same here.

...
guess I shouldn't have interjected my definition of Christianity or lack of understanding of what it means. Some "Christians" do "pretend" though they shouldn't.

I have no problem with your posts, I just didn't understand what they had to do with Woofie's post.

steveksux

06-29-2012, 05:13

Yeah, that's my point. Darwin suggests that all forms of life are descended from simpler forms. My understanding is that atheism really took hold after the publication of "The Origin of Species". Just a comment, not an argument.
Kind of like how belief in rain dances waned after Meteorology?

Randy

steveksux

06-29-2012, 05:19

Evolution or Darwinism?Big difference...............Kind of like calling someone dumb or stupid? Big difference? Really? Just because dumb can also mean "unable to speak"? Just using that as an obvious example, not inferring anything here, BTW. It will be obvious from the context, when someone is describing someone else as an idiot that either term is interchangeable.

It's pretty clear from the context of this thread that the connotation of evolution being referred to is exactly the definition that is the same as Darwinism.

The other connotations of evolution are irrelevant in this discussion and have no bearing on the contention that evolution in the theory of evolution is interchangeable with Darwinism.

However, if as it appears, you're operating under the misconception that either evolution or Darwinism suggests how life originated, and that's the only difference you're referring to between them, then you're simply in error that there's a difference between them.

Randy

scccdoc

06-29-2012, 15:40

Kind of like calling someone dumb or stupid? Big difference? Really? Just because dumb can also mean "unable to speak"? Just using that as an obvious example, not inferring anything here, BTW. It will be obvious from the context, when someone is describing someone else as an idiot that either term is interchangeable.

It's pretty clear from the context of this thread that the connotation of evolution being referred to is exactly the definition that is the same as Darwinism.

The other connotations of evolution are irrelevant in this discussion and have no bearing on the contention that evolution in the theory of evolution is interchangeable with Darwinism.

However, if as it appears, you're operating under the misconception that either evolution or Darwinism suggests how life originated, and that's the only difference you're referring to between them, then you're simply in error that there's a difference between them.

Randy

Even Christians believe in micro evolution, but not macro. I only wanted to give clarification, but received attack and perceived attack (see Brens' and my unfortunate exchange). Why do you think "Darwinism" is not the first definition under evolution?

scccdoc

06-29-2012, 15:45

BREN.................................

I reread the post you made and I apologize for the misunderstanding. I thought you were attacking me personally which is not uncommon when theists and atheist are on a thread . I was wrong.....................DOC

High-Gear

06-29-2012, 19:26

Even Christians believe in micro evolution, but not macro. I only wanted to give clarification, but received attack and perceived attack (see Brens' and my unfortunate exchange). Why do you think "Darwinism" is not the first definition under evolution?

Now back to your original statement.

How can you believe in micro evolution, but deny over the course of time many small changes add up to big changes?

Micro evolution is macro evolution, but only a glimpse of the process over a short span of time.

On a different note, reading your posts makes me recall many statements made by Lee Strobel in one of his "Case For" videos. Is this where you are getting your information? If so I can point you to a critique of how he is woefully wrong.

scccdoc

06-29-2012, 19:44

Now back to your original statement.

How can you believe in micro evolution, but deny over the course of time many small changes add up to big changes?

Micro evolution is macro evolution, but only a glimpse of the process over a short span of time.

On a different note, reading your posts makes me recall many statements made by Lee Strobel in one of his "Case For" videos. Is this where you are getting your information? If so I can point you to a critique of how he is woefully wrong.

Yes, I read him. But you cannot change my mind any more than I can change yours, and I have a degree in biology. I was Christian before I read him.

High-Gear

06-29-2012, 19:49

Yes, I read him. But you cannot change my mind any more than I can change yours, and I have a degree in biology. I was Christian before I read him.

Well, at least you admit you are closed minded. Now that you have identified the problem...

Unlike you My mind is open to change if only you could present convincing evidence.

From what University did you obtain your degree?

BTW, Ive only read of Evolution By Natural Selection, not this
"Darwinism" of which you speak. It seems like an attempt to belittle a much broader concept.

steveksux

06-29-2012, 20:05

Even Christians believe in micro evolution, but not macro. I only wanted to give clarification, but received attack and perceived attack (see Brens' and my unfortunate exchange). Why do you think "Darwinism" is not the first definition under evolution?I thought I made that clear. Because evolution has other connotations and usages besides the "theory of evolution".

Randy

Gunhaver

06-29-2012, 21:06

Yes, I read him. But you cannot change my mind any more than I can change yours, and I have a degree in biology. I was Christian before I read him.

If you have a degree in biology can you tell us what stops microevolution from adding up to macroevolution? Where are the brakes?

scccdoc

06-30-2012, 12:48

Well, at least you admit you are closed minded. Now that you have identified the problem...

Unlike you My mind is open to change if only you could present convincing evidence.

From what University did you obtain your degree?

BTW, Ive only read of Evolution By Natural Selection, not this
"Darwinism" of which you speak. It seems like an attempt to belittle a much broader concept.

Part of it comes from my belief in God. Do you want a testimony of my conversion and things I've witnessed?
My belief is an essence of my life, I'm sure you'll get a chuckle out of that.

You doubt that I have a Bachelor's in biology? It was 34 years ago, when Darwinism was so popular.From what I've read, some of his "evidence" has been discredited.Why do you think Darwin is the 5th definition in the dictionary (see above) under "evolution"? Seems to me it would be #1 if Darwinism is so iron clad associated with evolution.

AS far as "belittling"
Darwin,I am not. He made observations and then formulated a hypothesis. I don't agree with the hypothesis. As you don't agree that ther is a God. Simple, really.

scccdoc

06-30-2012, 12:51

If you have a degree in biology can you tell us what stops microevolution from adding up to macroevolution? Where are the brakes?

Well I have a Bachelor's degree, not a masters or PHD. Would love to see your evidence on this concept..........

scccdoc

06-30-2012, 12:54

I thought I made that clear. Because evolution has other connotations and usages besides the "theory of evolution".

Randy

I just broke it down a little more. No offense intended.

Gunhaver

06-30-2012, 13:53

Well I have a Bachelor's degree, not a masters or PHD. Would love to see your evidence on this concept..........

My evidence on this concept is that everyone knows that small changes happen and everyone knows that small changes add up to big changes over time if there isn't something to stop them at a given point. Even YEC folks that believe in the great flood story will tell you that Noah didn't have to have 2 or 7 of each of the 8.7 million species on earth because of adaptation. That's an acknowledgment of speciation there.

So, since we all know that evolution happens then anyone that wants to claim limitations on it has to show the cause of those limitations if they want to be taken seriously.

steveksux

06-30-2012, 15:05

I just broke it down a little more. No offense intended.

From what I've read, some of his "evidence" has been discredited.Why do you think Darwin is the 5th definition in the dictionary (see above) under "evolution"? Seems to me it would be #1 if Darwinism is so iron clad associated with evolution.I don't think you're grasping the concept of the word evolution referring to things other than the theory of evolution.

What you're suggesting makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The validity of a scientific theory has an influence on the order definitions get listed in a dictionary? :rofl:

If that's your idea of a reasoned argument, I'm thinking that calls into question your ability to make a reasoned argument about anything, let alone against evolution.

1
a : dignity or sobriety of bearing
b : importance, significance; especially : seriousness
c : a serious situation or problem
2
: weight
3
a (1) : the gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth, the moon, or a planet for bodies at or near its surface (2) : a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (as stars and planets), and between particles (as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 10-39 times the strength of the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter —called also gravitation, gravitational force —

Are you now going to call into question the validity of the Theory of Gravity due to its position in the list of definitions of various connotations of the word "gravity"?

Are you sure you're not playing a trick on us? You can't be serious, right???

Randy

scccdoc

06-30-2012, 15:47

]My evidence on this concept is that everyone knows that small changes happen and everyone knows that small changes add up to big changes over time if there isn't something to stop them at a given point[/B]. Even YEC folks that believe in the great flood story will tell you that Noah didn't have to have 2 or 7 of each of the 8.7 million species on earth because of adaptation. That's an acknowledgment of speciation there.

So, since we all know that evolution happens then anyone that wants to claim limitations on it has to show the cause of those limitations if they want to be taken seriously.

I don't dispute that.Your desire to continue this will not change my point of view of creation.....

scccdoc

06-30-2012, 16:06

I don't think you're grasping the concept of the word evolution referring to things other than the theory of evolution.

What you're suggesting makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The validity of a scientific theory has an influence on the order definitions get listed in a dictionary? :rofl:

If that's your idea of a reasoned argument, I'm thinking that calls into question your ability to make a reasoned argument about anything, let alone against evolution.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gravity

Are you now going to call into question the validity of the Theory of Gravity due to its position in the list of definitions of various connotations of the word "gravity"?

Are you sure you're not playing a trick on us? You can't be serious, right???

Randy

And it seems to me that "gravity" would be the #1 definition ! Do you think you can change my belief in creation via an argument? You can't. As I said from the beginning, I'm not trying to offend anyone with my belief or experiences and even told the OP I didn't want to debate something which has been thru the mill a thousand times. There's a way that seems right to a man that in the end leads to death.If I'm wrong...so what, if you're wrong,well.........

Gunhaver

06-30-2012, 16:36

I don't dispute that.Your desire to continue this will not change my point of view of creation.....

You said you would love to see my evidence so I gave it to you and you don't dispute it. I'm not trying to change your mind, just make you think about the validity of your position. If you're hell bent (so to speak) on disregarding any evidence that may contradict the bible then a simple, "Hey guys, there's nothing you could say or show me that will change my mind" will suffice but it's probably foolish of you to even continue these discussions if that's how you feel. You could just start out each post with, "Well, I'm totally close minded on this topic but..." so we know to ignore you.

scccdoc

06-30-2012, 17:04

You said you would love to see my evidence so I gave it to you and you don't dispute it. I'm not trying to change your mind, just make you think about the validity of your position. If you're hell bent (so to speak) on disregarding any evidence that may contradict the bible then a simple, "Hey guys, there's nothing you could say or show me that will change my mind" will suffice but it's probably foolish of you to even continue these discussions if that's how you feel. You could just start out each post with, "Well, I'm totally close minded on this topic but..." so we know to ignore you.
Funny, I thought that was a given. I can't explain everything, can you?Aren't you "close minded" about God? Should you start every post with that same disclaimer? Neither of us can prove to the other with absolute fact that the other is wrong. We're different people with different experiences.

scccdoc

06-30-2012, 19:15

My evidence on this concept is that everyone knows that small changes happen and everyone knows that small changes add up to big changes over time if there isn't something to stop them at a given point. Even YEC folks that believe in the great flood story will tell you that Noah didn't have to have 2 or 7 of each of the 8.7 million species on earth because of adaptation. That's an acknowledgment of speciation there.

So, since we all know that evolution happens then anyone that wants to claim limitations on it has to show the cause of those limitations if they want to be taken seriously.

Humor this ole country boy.When we spoke of changes, tell me what is the origin of the "original change". ie,when life came from non-living matter. I don't dispute small changes which lead to larger changes, but would you give examples which I would disagree?

High-Gear

06-30-2012, 19:49

And it seems to me that "gravity" would be the #1 definition ! Do you think you can change my belief in creation via an argument? You can't. As I said from the beginning, I'm not trying to offend anyone with my belief or experiences and even told the OP I didn't want to debate something which has been thru the mill a thousand times. There's a way that seems right to a man that in the end leads to death.If I'm wrong...so what, if you're wrong,well.........

Thank you for admitting you plan to deny all evidence to the contrary, and keep your head in the sand. Please answer my question, from which University did you earn a degree in biology?

My degree is from Friends University (a Quaker School).

Our gut hunch, or what "feels right" is not a scientific principle. Often the truth makes us feel uncomfortable. All true discovery does.

Oh, and nice way to paraphrase Pascal's wager. It is not very original, nor convincing. How do you know you have picked the right god of all of the available options? Do you lay awake at night worrying about that? No? Neither do I. Does god really want followers who are simply hedging their bets? Poor argument indeed.

Gunhaver

06-30-2012, 21:36

Humor this ole country boy.When we spoke of changes, tell me what is the origin of the "original change". ie,when life came from non-living matter. I don't dispute small changes which lead to larger changes, but would you give examples which I would disagree?

God of the gaps? How original. :upeyes:

Did the lack of discovery that the earth was round or that it orbited the sun make the people who claimed that it was flat or that it was the center of the universe correct until those discoveries were made? Or were they just wrong and nobody knew it for sure until technology advanced enough to tell us the real deal? Seems to me that the smart money is on not forming a firm opinion (ie, stating that nothing will change your mind) about a particular event or phenomena until there's some good data available on it.

Anyway, we're talking about evolution here, not abiogenesis. Two very different things. So tell me, if you accept that small changes add up into big changes over time then where do you think those big changes stop and what's the barrier?

Gunhaver

06-30-2012, 21:47

Funny, I thought that was a given. I can't explain everything, can you?Aren't you "close minded" about God? Should you start every post with that same disclaimer? Neither of us can prove to the other with absolute fact that the other is wrong. We're different people with different experiences.

It ain't about explaining everything and you know it. I'm not close minded about god because I haven't stated plain and simple that no amount of evidence will convince me of god. He may show himself to me any time he likes and I'll accept him as real but he sure seems to not want to do that.

Do you understand that in a court of law it's possible for one side to have a much stronger case than the other without really haven proven guilt or innocence beyond the shadow of a doubt? It's not about one side being absolutely, irrefutably 100% right. It's only about one side making a much better case than the other and impartial people recognizing as much.

Gunhaver

06-30-2012, 21:49

told the OP I didn't want to debate something which has been thru the mill a thousand times.

You can concede any time you like by dropping out of the discussion or stick around to defend your position. It's your choice.

steveksux

07-01-2012, 17:07

And it seems to me that "gravity" would be the #1 definition ! :rofl: Dear God, PLEASE tell me you're joking....

Do you think you can change my belief in creation via an argument? You can't. Not as a general rule, obviously not in your case. I thought it might be possible to point out when you're using a ridiculous argument to support it. Looks like one of us can admit when they're wrong.

As I said from the beginning, I'm not trying to offend anyone with my belief or experiences and even told the OP I didn't want to debate something which has been thru the mill a thousand times. There's a way that seems right to a man that in the end leads to death.If I'm wrong...so what, if you're wrong,well.........Better start going to Buddhist temples, Islamic Mosques, and following the whole gamut of alternative religions if your interest is to cover your bases.

Randy

Syclone538

07-01-2012, 22:25

Funny, I thought that was a given. I can't explain everything, can you?Aren't you "close minded" about God? Should you start every post with that same disclaimer? Neither of us can prove to the other with absolute fact that the other is wrong. We're different people with different experiences.

I was going to say, "Of course not, I'm just waiting on some evidence." But that's not really true. If a god spoke to me or appeared before me, and nobody else could see/hear it, I would question my sanity. So, I guess that makes me close minded about a god.